I bought Assassin's Creed 3 based off on Mr. Tito's perfect score on it. (Nevermind his Dragon Age 2 review)

It. Was. A. Huge. Fucking. Disappointment. (and I can even overlook Connor's "unlikeable" personality. I think he was fine)

Then he goes on to review Assassin's Creed 4 another perfect score. Does he think AC3 and AC4 are of same quality that warrants a perfect score? Or does he give out perfect score unconditionally to all Assassin's Creed games because he couldn't bother with reviewing it? To me, it raises questions on how he reviews games he plays.

Jim. Come here Jim take a seat. Why do you molest my childhood? It was all nicely put away with no regrets and you kicked the door in to remind me that I wasted time and money to get these fucking fantasy comic books.

While i generally aggree with that statement and think that raging idiots should be shut down at every turn, one has to look out while doing that to not shut down legetimate criticism. For example i clearly didn't like greg tito's review of dragon age 2. Not just because i personally don't like dragon age 2, but because it was not particullary well done in my opinion.It left out a lot of aspects of the game and glossed over others. And just to get a bit unreasonable at the end of this.If he likes the button-mashing combat, blander characters and unfocused story good for him.But, while visuals are a matter of opinion, i just can't see how anyone can call DA 2 the best - looking game of the year were Crysis 3 and the Witcher 2 were released.

The increasing bitter fortress of rage of the 'traditional gaming community' is nothing new. The more the industry has expanded the more resentful we have become. Personally i don't go in for this kind of thing (although sometimes review dissonance with technical or objective gameplay aspects of a game can be puzzling, but never really rage inducing)

The reason there was a backlash against Mass Effect 3 was because, apart from one big glaring issue, it was an excellent game. I personally felt that the ending of ME3 was a real let-down but only because the rest of the game was (and i still maintain this) fucking stellar. Especially the middle probably 2/3 of the game were gripping as hell. As i fan of "The Witcher 2" i can personally say that I'm surprised that game got scored as well as it did. It wasn't exactly 'user friendly' and this is coming from someone who played STALKER;Clear Sky pre-patches.

The only thing i feel compelled to speak out on in the blind support of pretty disgusting business practices. Apart from it's slow decline in quality this is the reason I've refused to be part of the Call of Duty cycle. Many big flashy AAA games represent the worst aspects of modern business culture towards consumers. BUT the games themselves can be enjoyed by people who are less worried by these issues. That's what i keep trying to explain to people. When i attack Call of Duty's ludicrously low content for a £35 season pass it's not because i think you shouldn't enjoy the game. It's because your enjoyment of the game is being exploited.

Not quite the same thing, but I remember a gal who really hated Persona 4 and Persona 4 fans. She touted the earlier Persona titles (mostly 2 and 3) and acted like a self described hardcore SMT fan. I'd try to defend the game, but she practically had her fingers in her ears as she was absolutely resolved to hate the most recent Persona title. Then I found out she finished Shin Megami Tensei IV and didn't know that Law path was not the same thing as "Good guy ending." In the context of her ignorance about the core series, her holier-than-thou attitude was... baffling.

I know that Jim is making a larger point about a certain section of chronically miserable people who aren't me but I thought I'd throw in my two cents because I think the two big examples he used are problematic to a certain degree.

I didn't buy or play DmC because it's not really my bag. But I know people who are big fans of the series who refused to buy it, and not because Dante got a different haircut. Ninja Theory, right out of the gate, went out of their way to alienate existing fans by trying to cultivate a "rock & roll" attitude for themselves. They dismissed the earlier DMC games that many people loved and, in a presentation, even photoshopped old Dante into a frame of Brokeback Mountain to illustrate how "gay" the original Dante was. Which is kind of homophobic, pretty damn petty and not exactly professional. (Seeing that is what took me from a "maybe" to a "definite no" in buying the game.) In trying so hard to go for the "this ain't yo Daddy's Devil May Cry" they willfully pushed away the people who were most likely to buy the game. Resulting in a giant flop, regardless of the actual quality of the product.

As for Mass Effect 3, my sympathies are limited. If you liked or loved Mass Effect 3, or even felt that the ending didn't ruin the overall experience... you're the majority. I'm sorry but the persecution complex that people have about this game (on both sides) is amazing. If you liked it, great. If you enjoyed the endings of Lost or the Battlestar Galactica remake, fantastic. No one is trying to take that away from you. But in all three of those cases, there is a rational, reasonable argument for why those endings didn't work. They may work for you, but they don't hold up to serious criticism. I like plenty of bad movies. I have watched probably every Dolph Lundgren movie ever made and genuinely, unironically enjoy most of them... but I'd never make the argument that they're good. Because my enjoyment of something doesn't supersede it's objective quality.

I had an argument last year with a guy who loved Aliens: Colonial Marines. (On an internet message board because of course.) He would not hear of any criticism of it. Any time I brought up a valid point, not in an accusatory manner or even dickishly, he would get wildly pissed off at me and accuse me of trying ruin the game for him. He was such a huge fan of the franchise that he literally could not tolerate any criticism of it. When I tried to have conversations with people in the wake of the ME3 controversy, I was called all manner of names. Professional game journalists, and please go back and read some of the posts from the major websites in that period, were wildly condescending and didn't help in any way to bring a level-headed response to the controversy.

Bottom line: the irrational responses people have are never just on one side of the argument.

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is.

Well, I can get your argument, but I think you are on a slippery slope with it ; because "objectivity" is an open-door to "focus group", like "what is objectively a good game?" ; and if such thing exists as a "objectively good game", then "let's do the same game ever and ever and ever".

For me, the only "objective" element is the "technical" aspect; the game is full of bugs, or the music is too loud, preventing you to hear anything, etc.

As I am a fan of RPG, I would say that the most important part for me for a game to be good is the emotional involvement, and how a game gives me goosebumps. And I think I would never be able to objectify that. If a game failed to do so, then it would be a bad game ; and I should say that, because if my friends ask advice to me, saying "this is an awesome game, but I don't like it" is like lying to them. This is not an awesome game, at least in my perspective.

A reviewer who let's their personal liking for a game stop them from acknowledging it's flaws is doing a pretty poor job. That's not worthy of hate, very little is, but it is potentially worthy of being a bit miffed.

As for ME3, I think that's not a great example. The hate was bouncing all over the place on that one, and critics were lobbying against the fans getting what they wanted - a revised ending. And often seemed to justify their position on possessing some superior criticly wisdom, which is a good way to rile people up.

.... I honestly don't believe you that the people responsible for this joy-hating are anything but a vocal minority. There's always been elitist twats but making it out like every second gamer is a rage machine?

newp.

And frankly i'm getting a bit over these sweeping generalizations about us Jim.

As someone who sees reviews as something to inform potential consumers, regardless of whether I liked the game or hated it I dislike positive reviews that fail to inform potential buyers of flaws far more then negative reviews that don't mention a games positive qualities. If I did hate the game though, this is amplified. If I had bought a game based on a review(not something I do anymore as there's other ways to find out if I like a game), I would be pretty damn pissed, and that did happen a few times. It's not positivity that would ever piss me off. It's people who are supposed to be helping the consumer not even mentioning potential problems. "Game Journalists" and consumers alike get pissed at publishers for things like having reviewers play SimCity in an environment where they can't experience the faults that come from it's online nature. Consumers also have a right to get pissed at reviewers for not mentioning the faults just because they felt the positives outweighed them.

That's not to say there aren't assholes out there that will flame just for liking something they didn't, but I feel specifically some of the examples given in this video aren't just cases of assholes not liking differing opinions.

I can only speak for my own experiences, but I've found that on the internet, there is a lot of positive reinforcement for anger and outrage. Some years ago, on my home forum, I realized how much time I spent being angry and made a public pledge to cool my tits with all that because I didn't like the kind of person I was becoming, and I was met with almost universal cries begging me not to, telling me that I was performing a public service by raging against this or that bad person, that I was improving the quality of the community by holding its members to the highest standard.

So if I wanted to retain the affectionate regard of the community, or at least enough of it to remain a popular voice, I had to continue to be angry all the time at people who offended me. My anger entertained others, and they rewarded me with praise and attention and camaraderie.

I like to think I made my own choices about my original dilemma and how much I wanted to let the anger make me into That Guy, but all the same, it was hard to swear off the rage. It had become less of an instinct than a reflex, and it took me a long time to calm down enough to be fair to people. My entire internet persona these days is crafted to be as polite as possible (while never forgetting that nothing about politeness requires me to suffer bullshit) as kind of a bulwark against that reflexive drive to feel popular by spewing vitriol.

How true that is for the average "you're a bad person for liking a game I dislike" sort is a question I can't answer. I notice that such people do exist, but I dismiss them as trolls and tend not to remember them after that initial mental shrug, so I can't really speak to their mindset. If they're anything like me, though, it's because anger wins way more positive attention than does polite agreement and/or supporting discourse. I do personally believe, though, that if we want to stop people from being furious at dissenting opinions, then the internet community as a general whole needs to provide less incentive to be furious all the time.

This is really simple Jim. People often see the people who like what they dislike as an extension of what they dislike and will often attack these people in place of the actual thing they dislike, since you can't really attack a game and most developers/publishers are unresponsive when it comes to complaints.

HOWEVER, gamers themselves aren't guilty of this. Many game journalists are guilty of this too. You pointed out DmC as an example, so I'm going to use that. When the demo came out, people complained about the game. Most fans of DMC, like myself, disliked how casualized the gameplay was, felt the removal of styles was a major step down, didn't like the game making getting SSS ranks too easy, and felt that the platforming sections seemed forced into the game. How did journalists react? They dismissed them for disliking their opinions and said they were just complaining about they hair-color change. This happened with Mass Effect 3 as well when people complained about the game itself and were written off as being just upset over the ending.

The major thing to take from this is that EVERYONE is guilty of this. People will always hate on other for liking different things and vise versa, and they are really both just as bad. This happens all the time. The only reason "gamers" are more vocal about this is because of how gaming media works and how everyone can be anonymous and say whatever they want without consequence. Of course game journalists or developers (people who can be recognized by the community) won't voice their dislike for things in such ways because they'll get targeted even more by the community (see Phil Fish).

There's also a major difference between just liking something and blindly liking something, Jim. As stated before, many journalists will be quick to simply latch onto a game that they enjoyed or were payed to enjoy and dismiss any opposing opinion as wrong. There's a difference between liking DmC while acknowledging DMC fans being disappointed and liking DMC while dismissing all negative opinions for the game. Not to say that anyone attacks against you were justified, but to simply lump all the people together like that is just plain wrong.

DmC and Bioshock Infinite are still shit. I have a right to voice my dislike of something and attacking me for saying this or simply dismissing me as "wrong" makes you a fucking hypocrite.

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is.

Well, I can get your argument, but I think you are on a slippery slope with it ; because "objectivity" is an open-door to "focus group", like "what is objectively a good game?" ; and if such thing exists as a "objectively good game", then "let's do the same game ever and ever and ever".

For me, the only "objective" element is the "technical" aspect; the game is full of bugs, or the music is too loud, preventing you to hear anything, etc.

As I am a fan of RPG, I would say that the most important part for me for a game to be good is the emotional involvement, and how a game gives me goosebumps. And I think I would never be able to objectify that. If a game failed to do so, then it would be a bad game ; and I should say that, because if my friends ask advice to me, saying "this is an awesome game, but I don't like it" is like lying to them. This is not an awesome game, at least in my perspective.

And I ask people to be people. I let "objectivity" to machines.

That's the problem - there ARE things that are objectively good and bad game design! Yet people seem proud to cry out "It's all just opinion." No! No it isn't! That's why some designers are better at making games than others! There is skill in design, and there are things that are good and things that are bad that you can build into your games.

No, not everything applies. Some things some people will like and other won't. But there ARE things you can objectively call bad. Objectively bad writing. Objectively bad graphics. Objectively bad voice acting. Objectively bad pacing. Objectively bad mechanics. Objectively bad use of music. You can go the other way and point out things that are good.

This is what a professional review is SUPPOSED TO DO, drawing on their deep knowledge and experience in video games. Problem is, most "professional" reviewers don't even bother with this - they just trot out the "I liked it so it's good. Let me tell you what I liked and didn't like!" and call it a review. That's not a review! You're supposed to be telling me why or why I might not like it, not why you liked it! To make that determination, you need to analyze what is good or bad about the game compared to other good/bad games similar to it. You need to even make different recommendations for different types of people!

I can not like a game while still acknowledging that it is objectively good. Halo is a good example. I despise Halo and all it represents, but the game is solid.

Unfortunately, so many people in the world merge the statements and only ever advocate one thing:

1. Because I liked it, it's a good game.2. Because I don't like it, it's a bad game.

Wrong. WRONG! People need to divorce their personal feelings from objectively looking at what a game is.

Your enjoyment of a game is closely tied to its quality.A game can have all the parts of a good game without actually being good.An entertainment product lives and dies on what it manages to deliver in terms of entertainment. Without subjective opinion to gauge the value of the total sum of its parts, reviewing and discussion would just be statements of measurable statistics. Like, how many textures are in the game, the amount of fully rendered staircases, total number of words spoken in the story, etc.

And way to play down the reviewers that work for sites like the escapist.

For what its worth these people have somewhat of an influence on peoples decisions to buy or not to buy a game. And if something like Dragon age 2 comes along... yes you are allowed to personaly like it.

But a bloody perfect score for a game that was anything BUT perfect? That is just wrong.

However the bile that follows... yeah i agree we could do without it. However i hope you dont advocate that from now on reviewers should not be critisized anymore for their more then questionable score choices. Come to think of it lately you have made many many videos about how its "wrong" to critizes the critics, and come of as someone who uses the.. lets say.. less intelligent portion of gaming kind as a universal shield against more well thought out critics, putting a label on anyone who does not just accept someones opinion as given especialy when its an obviously flawed one.

Reviewers like that are doing the video games industry just as much wrong as the hatefull bile spewing lot that attacks them.

These reviewers give EA and co. the apologies to continue to take a crap on games and gamers by rewarding their half assed works with perfect review scores, and the reviewers who gave these perfect scores should be ashamed of themselves, cause they are clearly not doing their job right.

Even baldurs gate 2 back in the day didnt got a 10 out of 10 but yet dragon age 2 gets perfect review scores across the board? Sorry but if you make such a "questionable" decision then be prepared to be called out upon it and stop whining that the internet is so mean to you.

If you post your opinion on the internet be prepared to have it challaned and be called out for it. That goes for everyone including internet critics, "game journalists" or reviewers of any kind. If you cant deal with that then perhaps writing for a magazine isntead would be the better choice... whoops.. i forgot.. those are in decline.

Your enjoyment of a game is closely tied to its quality.A game can have all the parts of a good game without actually being good.An entertainment product lives and dies on what it manages to deliver in terms of entertainment. Without subjective opinion to gauge the value of the total sum of its parts, reviewing and discussion would just be statements of measurable statistics. Like, how many textures are in the game, the amount of fully rendered staircases, total number of words spoken in the story, etc.

Yes and no.

If you like a game thats cool... but if you go on the ineternet and declare it the perfect game because you personaly enjoyed it and ignored all the very obvious flaws AND get paid for said review... theres a certain amount of professionalism expected.

There are people who really really really like X: Rebirth

Wouldnt you call them out on their BS if they made a review on a website like the escapist and gave it a 10/10 claiming its the perfect game?

After all they did really seem to enjoy it despite all its grating flaws so they must be right.

We all have our rights to our opinions and we all have our rights to not agree with someone else on their opinion, but rage and wraith over it is not acceptable. I dont agree with anyone giving Bioshock infinite an award, it was a game that made me feel depressed that people revere it as the peak of FPS storytelling. But im not going to be mad at anyone for that, just a tad dissapointed is all. Just like im a tad dissapointed that gamers flock to games like treyarchs cods or the GTA series.

Boogie Knight:Then I found out she finished Shin Megami Tensei IV and didn't know that Law path was not the same thing as "Good guy ending." In the context of her ignorance about the core series, her holier-than-thou attitude was... baffling.

Wait, what?

General spoilers for the Shin Megami Tensai 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

erttheking:I'm sorry, the Witcher 2 is better than Dragon Age 2? Please explain to me how that is anything more than your personal opinion.

This might get a bit off topic but OK, I'll bite. It's been a while since I played them, so just a few basic things:

- TW2 has some of the most impressive visuals on release, and it still holds excellent over two years later. In comparison DA2 looks like a drab mix of brown and grey. (objective)

- TW2 has beautiful, interesting, varied and well designed environments. After a few hours in DA2, most locations look like I've already visited them. Let's not even start on recycled dungeons. Same about characters, and the way they move and visually interact. (objective)

- Combat in DA2 is almost MMO-like. Mim-maxing your characters often plays a greater role than tactics. Combat in TW2 rewards good reflexes and planning. You can't gulp down potions during combat. On higher difficulties (end even on "normal"), you talk to characters, read books, follow clues and prepare accordingly for major encounters. (subjective, I guess - some people like MMO-style combat better, after all)

- Some of the menu design and interface (items and character equipment icons, I'm looking at you!) in DA2 is a freaking disgrace. Some usability aspects of TW2's interface also leave a bit to be desired, but at least the UI works better and looks like a work of art. (objective)

- Both games set to depict a dark, mature setting. TW2 does it much better, with a world that is so lovingly crafted it could come to life (subjective, I agree, personal preference and all that)

- Both games tout player choice as a major theme. In TW2 the illusion never fails. DA2 offers you "choice" and seems to like to go in your face for a "fate is cruel, what you did didn't matter in the end". However, it often comes off as "we didn't bother to make the story reflect your choices, you'll take it as is". (subjective, I guess, some could end up liking DA2's storytelling and never question it)

I'll stop here and just put it simply: the world of TW2 felt much more engaging and engrossing. That the game is much more memorable and played better (ok, subjective) is what I'm personally interested in.

How about you? You have played through both games, right? Tell us objectively why Dragon Age 2 is a better game than the The Witcher 2. I'm not even going to suggest someone to explain how DA2 could get a perfect score if the score system is actually meant to compare games in any equitable manner.

Great video on an issue that has been bothering me for a while Jim. I'm suprised you didn't bring up Yahtzee getting backlash for naming Bioshock Infinite as his game of the year, being genuinly angry at him for choosing a game they happened to not like.

I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game. But I feel that would be horribly off topic and just asking to start an argument with someone. So I'll save it for another video.

magicmonkeybars:So what happens when I apply the message this video sends to say Anita Sarkeesian who has build an entire video series on hating things other people love because she doesn't agree with them.

magicmonkeybars:So what happens when I apply the message this video sends to say Anita Sarkeesian who has build an entire video series on hating things other people love because she doesn't agree with them.

That's not what her video series is about.

Yeah... "hate" is the wrong word here.

She barely shows any emotions kept for what i think is "smugness"... if you can call that an emotion.

But hate? No.. absolutely not. After all she needs all these old nintendo games or else she would be out of a job and back to making feminist frequency videos that barely anyone watches.

I can safely see that I saw this in spades over the weekend on PC Gamer. They gave their aggregate game of the year award to Spelunky. The shit really hit the fan on that one. People were so mad it defied reason. I think Spelunky was a great game on the PC. They gave a lot of reasons why they all loved it. None of them had that as their actual game of the year, but they explained how they landed on that as an aggregate choice. It was crazy, so much acid spitting it was crazy. All because they all thoroughly enjoyed it. The comments were people getting pissed because they didn't select a Triple A title. People pissed because they didn't choose a game that would tax their over priced boxes. And people getting mad because it was a remake of a game from 2008. I was a bit ashamed to be part of that site. Then there was the obligatory comments about how PC Gamer is out of touch and everyone needs to move en mass to sites like Kotaku and RPS. It was ridiculous. Good to know that most gamers are children or adults that cannot act like adults.

Edit: I misspoke. Not most gamers. Vocal gamers. My bad. I'm leaving that up so everyone can see my mistake.

If you like a game thats cool... but if you go on the ineternet and declare it the perfect game because you personaly enjoyed it and ignored all the very obvious flaws AND get paid for said review... theres a certain amount of professionalism expected.

There are people who really really really like X: Rebirth

Wouldnt you call them out on their BS if they made a review on a website like the escapist and gave it a 10/10 claiming its the perfect game?

After all they did really seem to enjoy it despite all its grating flaws so they must be right.

Or do you call them out on their obvious unprofessional bias?

"Perfect" does not equal "not flawed".If, in the reviewers opinion, X: Rebirth is living up to and/or exceeding everything it sets out to do it might very well be perfect.

I get that some people didn't get what they wanted, but for me it was awesome. One of the best games that came out last year.

Great video. :)

Quoted as I also loved DmC, and heaven forbid, I loved 1 and 3 (2 was mediocre and I've never played 4).

This is the best vid from Jim in a while for me (don't hate me for it). I've never liked Tekken, but do not begrudge those who do. I'm one of the 3 people on the planet who like Too Human (dispite it's shitty boss fights, camera issues and a few unfair enemy types).

Jim/Anyone, where does that picture at 1.20 come from?!I remember it from a long time ago but can't remember from what and my life will not be able to continue until I find out. I have a feeling it was awesome in some way.

TheDefenestrator:I know that Jim is making a larger point about a certain section of chronically miserable people who aren't me but I thought I'd throw in my two cents because I think the two big examples he used are problematic to a certain degree.

I didn't buy or play DmC because it's not really my bag. But I know people who are big fans of the series who refused to buy it, and not because Dante got a different haircut. Ninja Theory, right out of the gate, went out of their way to alienate existing fans by trying to cultivate a "rock & roll" attitude for themselves. They dismissed the earlier DMC games that many people loved and, in a presentation, even photoshopped old Dante into a frame of Brokeback Mountain to illustrate how "gay" the original Dante was. Which is kind of homophobic, pretty damn petty and not exactly professional. (Seeing that is what took me from a "maybe" to a "definite no" in buying the game.) In trying so hard to go for the "this ain't yo Daddy's Devil May Cry" they willfully pushed away the people who were most likely to buy the game. Resulting in a giant flop, regardless of the actual quality of the product.

As for Mass Effect 3, my sympathies are limited. If you liked or loved Mass Effect 3, or even felt that the ending didn't ruin the overall experience... you're the majority. I'm sorry but the persecution complex that people have about this game (on both sides) is amazing. If you liked it, great. If you enjoyed the endings of Lost or the Battlestar Galactica remake, fantastic. No one is trying to take that away from you. But in all three of those cases, there is a rational, reasonable argument for why those endings didn't work. They may work for you, but they don't hold up to serious criticism. I like plenty of bad movies. I have watched probably every Dolph Lundgren movie ever made and genuinely, unironically enjoy most of them... but I'd never make the argument that they're good. Because my enjoyment of something doesn't supersede it's objective quality.

I had an argument last year with a guy who loved Aliens: Colonial Marines. (On an internet message board because of course.) He would not hear of any criticism of it. Any time I brought up a valid point, not in an accusatory manner or even dickishly, he would get wildly pissed off at me and accuse me of trying ruin the game for him. He was such a huge fan of the franchise that he literally could not tolerate any criticism of it. When I tried to have conversations with people in the wake of the ME3 controversy, I was called all manner of names. Professional game journalists, and please go back and read some of the posts from the major websites in that period, were wildly condescending and didn't help in any way to bring a level-headed response to the controversy.

This was a point I was going to make to refute much of Jim's argument in this case. It's not that gamers didn't like that reviewers gave ME3 great reviews, or that they didn't tell people that the ending sucked - that's to be expected from even the most biased and unprofessional game reviewer. You don't spoil the ending and you try to give games as positive a review as possible.

It's how they inserted themselves in the conversation after in arrogant, condescending and downright petty ways that turned the tide on that one. Reviewers too criticism of their reviews personally (often times justifiably so) and instead of doing what they normally do - move on to review the next game and ignore the personal criticisms - they got involved with the petty gamers who had nothing to lose.

Also with ME3, it was a time of plenty for those who wanted to troll. A simple statement like "The ending was okay." or "The ending wasn't all that good." was enough (at the height of the reaction) to spawn a 100 post thread full of flames and other insults. So trying to use the ME3 controversy is sort of like saying "Ford cars have always sucked! Look at the Edsel!". There's a bit of a truth to it (the Edsel was a terrible car) but it misses the larger picture.

Edl01:I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game.

STOP.

Stop that right now. You're making a huge generalization that is just plain wrong. Lumping all critics together and dismissing as hypocrites is incredibly petty. You're dismissing any valid criticism in that way, and killing any possible legitimate discussion of the game. And at least Half-Life respects the player's intelligence enough to give them more than 2 weapons and some health packs.

Edl01:I also would love to go off about how Bioshock infinite gets tons of hate for being a corridor shooter when the exact same people are waiting in suspence for the next half life game. But I feel that would be horribly off topic and just asking to start an argument with someone. So I'll save it for another video.

I am one of those people, and yes, I would love another "Half Life" game. I expect different things from the "Half Life" series to the "Bioshock" series. But even disregarding those expectations, my problems with "Bioshock Infinite" go way beyond it being "just another corridor shooter", even though that's essentially what it is. I can ENJOY corridor shooters, if they're good. "Bioshock Infinite" was not. Its core gameplay mechanics were its weakest point. Its world and its story were its strongest points, however:

- There was nothing interesting to actually DO within the world, other than watch what happened in it.

- I constantly felt as though I was WATCHING the story, rather than playing it or contributing to it. I never once even felt the illusion that my actions were contributing towards the story.

Honestly if "Bioshock Infinite" has taught me anything, it's to avoid any game that claims to "tell a story". Look, I want to make my OWN story. It's the absolute least that I expect from a piece of interactive media, and it's a requirement that more and more games seem to be failing nowadays. I thought "Bioshock Infinite" had a great story, and yet I had very little engagement with it. If you're putting me directly in control of a character in a story then let me make DECISIONS. Otherwise what's the freaking point? I don't empathise with his actions, which aren't necessarily the ones I would have chosen (and some of which seem downright silly to me.) And yet I'm supposed to "be" him.

Pyrokinesis:We all have our rights to our opinions and we all have our rights to not agree with someone else on their opinion, but rage and wraith over it is not acceptable. I dont agree with anyone giving Bioshock infinite an award, it was a game that made me feel depressed that people revere it as the peak of FPS storytelling. But im not going to be mad at anyone for that, just a tad dissapointed is all. Just like im a tad dissapointed that gamers flock to games like treyarchs cods or the GTA series.

I agree with this in spirit, although I've never played a CoD game and the last GTA I played was GTA3.

And can some of the posters on this forum please stop assuming that anybody who disagrees with the positive reception of "Bioshock Infinite" and other games is doing so because of some kind of "emotional backlash". There are good, objective reasons as to why I was disappointed in this game.

The only "emotional backlash" I'm getting here is due to the fact that I've been playing Ken Levine's games since 1996, he's the creator of my favorite game ever, and yet I feel that his last few have gone in TOTALLY the wrong direction. It is frustrating to me that professional critics are not pointing out some of the negatives of these recent games - and I'm not just talking about subjective experience here. There are objective flaws that can be highlighted, and this game had a lot.

I don't begrudge anybody who enjoyed "Bioshock Infinite" more than I did. I'm happy for them, and I wish I'd had the same experience. But I expect more than that from a professional critic. I honestly feel that "Total Biscuit"'s "WTF is... Bioshock Infinite" was the only write-up of this game that gave me an honest appraisal of both its positive and negative points. That should not be the case.

Sorry Jim, but in my opinion the critics FAILED. They utterly bought into the hype and glossed over the game's failings. It's fine to point out that you loved the game despite those failings - but it's dishonest to pretend they just don't exist.

Darth_Payn:I find it odd that Jim talked about games as "pure joy factories" when he opened the video with footage from The Last of Us, which is, as Yahtzee put it, Naughty Dog's Oscar bait to the Summer Action Blockbuster of the Uncharted series. Slavishly adhering to the trope True Art Is Depressing. Not my cup of tea, but I see how some types of people would be fans. I understand being angry with someone hating something you like, because it's easy to take it personally. When I first heard Jim hated Assassin's Creed II, my first thought was "Dafuq is wrong with you?!" and I still think that sometimes. I haven't played Bioshock:Infinite yet, but I can see how people would hate it for not being enough like the first game, since the name "Bioshock" is now synonymous with the mood, atmosphere, and thought-provoking story that didn't talk down to you, the player (see the trope Viewers Are Geniuses).

There's a lot more to The Last of Us than just being depressing. The depressing parts work because the characters have other moods to compare sadness to and something to live for, and the game ends on a relatively hopeful note. Slavishly adhering to a depressing tone would mean a shallow, drawn-out series of non-stop tragedies with no meaning because there wouldn't be any variation.

loa:Are you serious?Are you seriously oblivious about all the sleazy business going on behind the scenes of game reviews?Do you really not understand why people who bought DA2 based on the perfect score, opened the box and out fell a turd would be mad at the reviewer?Would you as a consumer trust a single fucking review on IGN?Do you really think game journalists don't have an obligation to consumers?Oh wait, do you actually believe this is just about "random people on the internet liking something"?Are you this naive or are you just balls deep in the swamp yourself?

Weak jim.Very weak.

That is literally all it is.

Reviews are subjective. Games journalists have no "Duty to the consumer" in terms of opinions. Too bad if IGN liked something. get over it.